We spent a lot of time studying other countries' DFIs in order to differentiate ourselves and learn from their experiences. Now that the board of directors and the whole governance structure are being created, the team will establish a reference framework for itself. Earlier, I talked about the reference framework on results, but there are also matters of ethics, transparency and decision-making to consider. So there are different frameworks involved.

We certainly want to learn from those experiences so as not to promote or encourage tax avoidance or tax evasion.

Not encouraging it is not the same as prohibiting it. If I understand correctly, there is no official prohibition in the legislation. The board of directors will set its own rules, and all that is yet to come. Is that right?

Diane JacovellaDeputy Minister, International Development, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

We can check whether there is anything specific concerning EDC, but in all its policies, the government tries to completely avoid tax havens. If there is anything to deal with, we will note it, but the rule is clear, and it indicates that tax havens must be avoided.

We had a discussion earlier this week in the House on a completely different issue, still in relation to international development. You are telling us—and we know this—that Canada is slowing down when it comes to development assistance funding. We are currently at about 0.26%. We are below the OECD average. You said—in your presentation this morning and in the House this week—that you were using Canada's leadership to raise new funding.

How can Canada provide leadership given that it is not ahead of the pack, but rather below the average when it comes to funding, and given the fact that our DFI will also be the smallest of the known institutions?

I really believe in what I said. In all the consultations we have held over a year and a half, even two years if we include my first roundtables, people asked me for three things—and this is not the first time you are hearing me say it. They asked for leadership, a good policy and money.

Yesterday, we once again met with Kristalina Georgieva, the second in command at the World Bank, and she told us that they needed Canada's leadership. The World Bank wants us to be at all the tables. Our trademark, the name “Canada”, has a very high value right now, and that is what we want to emphasize. That's really what I want to use to seek out new donors. It's not just a matter of moving funds, but of seeking out donors who are absolutely not involved in development right now.

The global fund is a good example. The fact that we hosted the Replenishment Conference of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria shows that people want to be associated with Canada's leadership and its name. People currently want to get closer to Canada. So this is a way to make that possible, and there will be other ways.

The British newspaper I mentioned also reported that the country's Development Finance Institution was investing more than $260 million U.S. in the constructions of gated affluent communities. That is light years away from development and from a concrete response to sustainable development objectives and to the fight against poverty on the ground. How will your institution ensure that such deviations are not funded?

Our objectives and orientations are clear. We really want to strike a balance between development and the promotion of entrepreneurship. However, there must be an impact on entrepreneurship among women and girls. We want to take action in the areas of the environment, agriculture and financial services to stimulate economic development locally. Therefore, I don't see how an affluent neighbourhood project could meet the Canadian DFI's eligibility criteria.

Good morning. I've seen first-hand the great work you're doing in Colombia and Guatemala when it comes to agriculture, but I was looking at the paragraph under “Background” in our briefing notes. It mentions empowering “women and young entrepreneurs”, but not agriculture.

My background is in agriculture, and I'm very keen that the countries we invest money in should be sustainable when it comes to food What do you have to say about that?

Agriculture and agribusiness is definitely one key element of the policy and the orientation that we have given to the DFI—I'm sorry if it's not clear enough in the document—especially when we talk about women. I've travelled a lot, and obviously women are really, really engaged in the agricultural business and in the informal business.

DFI might be a good occasion to give them access to financing, where they can go from the informal market to the formal market. With access to financing they can develop a business and work in the value chain in different ways that economically empower women. The agricultural sector is definitely a key sector for that.

Second, we're talking huge money under DFI—like, trillions of dollars, $3 trillion to $4 trillion, at some point—and in 2016 only $142 billion was disposed of. I know that we're going to do our fair share, but how do we encourage the other partners to meet that goal of $3 trillion to $4 trillion someday? Do we as a country have any input, any influence, or are we just going to be the leaders coming up with our commitment and the rest of the world follows us?

You did mention that other countries are chipping in, but it's a long way to go. Where do you see us going with that, with the trillions of dollars that we anticipate to be spending one day?

I just want to make sure I got your question right. If you're referring to the needs, if we want to reach the SDGs by 2030, we would need between $5 trillion and $7 trillion, while ODA actually is $142 trillion.

This is your question? Okay. I just wanted to be sure.

Yes, this is exactly why we have to give as much as possible through the normal ODA channel, but we have to leverage new money from new partners. Yes, I think Canada has the capacity, the leadership, and the brand right now to lead the way, to lead the way and bring money in the sectors that we think will make the greatest difference in the field. This is exactly what I'm working on right now with Ambassador Blanchard at the UN. Ambassador Blanchard is co-leading a group of friends, with his colleague from Jamaica, on financing SDGs. Yesterday Madam Georgieva from the World Bank was here to talk about innovative financing in different ways.

So this is really the idea. For example, we want to bring the countries from the gulf region on board—we think we can find some money over there—to get them interested in different sectors of development and to accompany them in this. We want to involve the private sector. When I talk about the private sector, I'm talking about businesses, philanthropists, and even millennials. I want to re-engage Canadians widely. The DFI is one way to engage the private sector, but in a more general way it's important to find new friends and new donors for development.

The private sector is coming up pretty strong. I see that they're chipping in 13 times more than the governments are. I think we need to encourage the governments around the world to step up to the plate.

Finally, the committee would be very keen, as DFI develops, to know the outcome, the results of the money we spend. Do you know if we have a mechanism in place? Are you going to come back every six months or every year to let us know how we're making out, or do we have a mechanism in place?